You might think that shifting your thoughts is as easy as setting your mind to it. But stressful thoughts aren't held in place through choice or will power. They're held in place through perceived truth value. What that means is, if you believe that you're unsuccessful, for example, you can tell yourself otherwise, but as long as you still believe that this statement is true, it will stick. Conversely, when something is seen as false, it stops sticking and falls away. No one holds on to a false belief once they recognize it as false.

I call this movement from seeing something as true to seeing it as false "insight." It's the realization that what you had believed to be the case, upon closer examination, is actually mistaken. So the opposite of stress isn't relaxation. The opposite of stress is insight. The more insight you have, the less stress you experience.

And this is the key to real psychological transformation. Anyone who has seen legendary psychologist Albert Ellis lay into clients has witnessed the attempt at insight. Byron Katie provokes the same thing in a noticeably softer style, as do cognitive therapists. I've spent years studying a wide range of processes that provoke insights, trying to create an approach that maximizes targeted insights and minimizes extraneous effort. Out of this grew my own process, called ActivInsight.

ActivInsight is seven steps done on paper. You use a guided worksheet because it helps you focus better than if you tried to do it out loud or in your head. I'll explain now how it works. (You can download a free worksheet from www.activinsight.com to follow along.)

First, you identify the belief that is provoking your negative emotions. The next time you feel angry or upset, just notice what you're thinking about. For example, let's say Joan is angry and she notices that the thought provoking it is "People on Wall St. shouldn't be so greedy." So Joan would write that statement on the lines of Step 1.

In Step 2, you rate the strength of your belief on a scale from 0 to 10, 10 being the most. This gives us a way to quantify and benchmark our progress. Someone who really gets worked up about Wall St. would probably give this a high number. Joan circles 10. (Note to Spinal Tap fans, your worksheets can go to eleven.)

In Step 3, you circle the feelings and behaviors that take place when you think this thought. Joan circles angry, resentful, and frustrated, and for behaviors, she notes that she complains, smokes, resents people on Wall St., and overeats. These would be different for each person, and you can always write in words that aren't listed. The lists are just meant to give you ideas.

Steps 4 and 5 are where the transformation happens. Step 4 asks you to negate your belief. Negation is a term from logic. The negation of "should" is "should not." The negation of "should not" is "should." You just flip the main verb from positive to negative or negative to positive. The rest of the sentence stays the same.

So the negation in Step 4 is "People on Wall St. should be so greedy." That seems strange, but we'll come back to it in a second. First, I want you to add a few qualifying words that will help us in Step 5. You add "In reality" at the beginning, and "at this time" at the end, like this:

"People on Wall St. shouldn't be so greedy" becomes:

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time."

If that seems to you like the most backward thing we could come up with, that's a good sign. It means we've put our finger on the knot in your mind that is producing stress.

Think about this for a moment: If this process simply confirmed what you already believed, it would be useless. The whole point of ActivInsight is to shift the ground under your beliefs so that you see things from a startlingly different point of view. It's this shift that results in less stress, because the stress is being produced from your perspective. So this approach is inherently designed to challenge the way you think.

The advantage to this is that it makes psychological transformation into a repeatable skill you can do on your own whenever you need to. The disadvantage is that you're going to have to argue against your own position, which takes real open-mindedness. (It does get easier with practice.)

Let's say Joan is open-minded and tired of living with stress, so she continues. In Step 5, ActivInsight asks you to find proof for why the negation is true. How could it possibly be true that, in reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time?

Joan blinks. "It isn't true."

But consider this: Do you think that these supposedly greedy people just materialized one day, or was their greed (whatever Joan is calling greed) built somehow? "Yes," Joan says, "It must be something they learned while they were young." So that's part of why in reality, they should be so greedy at this time. Can you see that? It's an effect of prior causes.

In ActivInsight, "should" isn't what you imagine ought to exist. Should is what is, the real world, because the real world is a product of factors that have built it. For example, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time (not tomorrow, not forever, just right now), because they grew up believing in the power of money, because they value it, and because Wall St. has turned those values into an industry.

"I never thought about it like that," Joan says. "You're not saying that they should be so greedy forever because that's a good thing. You're saying that, in reality, they should be so greedy right now because that's how they were raised, that our society has fostered that, so it's what exists."

Exactly. Step 5 connects your mind back to the real world. The more effort you put into this step, the more you get out of it. It's important that you emphasize the words "at this time" so that you see that we're only taking about now, not forever. In other words, we're not condoning anything. We're merely describing it. So doing this, Joan could come up with the following:

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time because that's how they were raised to think."

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time because they believe that making money is the most important thing in life."

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time because from a young age kids play games like Monopoly that are all about accumulating money, so it gets ingrained in us."

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time because our society emphasizes the importance of money in finding happiness."

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time because as a culture we equate making money with being successful."

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time because they believe that if they make lots of money, they can give back to society more effectively (so they justify their greed)."

"In reality, people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time because they think that making money is what keeps the economy going, even if it isn't really working that way for most of us."

Do you see how this works? Joan would spend some time thinking through this and writing down whatever she came up with.

Then she reads her list out loud to herself, taking it in. She hears the proof explaining why the negation — as odd as it sounded a few minutes ago — is actually true in reality and at this time. Through that realization, a shift takes place. The knot in her mind begins to loosen.

Next, in Step 6, Joan looks at the feelings and behaviors that come with the negation. When she realizes that people on Wall St. should be so greedy at this time (because that's how they were raised, because our society values money, etc.), she feels more understanding. She feels calmer, and less angry. Distractions like smoking or eating no longer feel necessary, and new actions come into play. She might get back to focusing on her own life. She might think about ways to ensure that her children or grandchildren have certain priorities or values. She might look into regulatory reform to keep greed in check, or educational resources that help more people think about the bigger picture. But it all comes from understanding — from insight — instead of from anger.

The last step is simply re-rating the belief we began with. "People on Wall St. shouldn't be so greedy." That was a 10 for Joan when she started. But now, having looked at this belief more closely, she sees it as less true and rates it a 3. (What number did you give it on your worksheet?) And that change, from a 10 to a 3, plays itself out in her life in a number of positive ways.

That's the transformational power of insight. Whenever you experience stress, you're unknowingly believing something that isn't true, and ActivInsight gives you a simple tool to reveal the error and correct it step by step.

Like any skill, this takes some practice and guidance. In The Myth of Stress, I explain how this works in greater detail, and walk you through a dozen topics like the one above, from relationships to money to weight loss. I'll continue to blog here about the nature of insight and stress, and how to work through issues that may be bothering you. Let me know in the comments area what questions you have, or what you'd like to explore.

-----Andrew Bernstein is the founder of ActivInsight, a simple process that is changing the way individuals and organizations understand stress and resilience. His new book, The Myth of Stress, reveals how ActivInsight quickly transforms problems at work, at school, and at home. You can ask Andrew questions in the comments here or through twitter@mythofstress.

I have to disagree with your process for several reasons.
First, you are still trying to wrestle with the content of thought process and to change it. That sounds like sitting down to have an argument with yourself. Whoever wins, you lose.
Second, this would be a great idea if the thoughts we have were logical. If that were the case, it would be fairly easy to change from one thought to another. From my experience and looking at research, the more one fights with their own thoughts, the stronger the thought gets. See research by Daniel Wegner, for example.
Third, the process you describe is too complicated. I think I lost interest at step 2 or 3. There has to be simpler ways to live life without such complicated methods.
Finally, what if a person just decided that anger is there, it's an uncomfortable feeling, and it is also a condition of being human. Then focuse on what is truly important to move forward, carrying the feeling with you.

I don't know that a blog post of a few hundred words is the best way to describe a process that is changing the way many people and organizations understand psychological transformation. It seems like there are too many nuances and unanswered questions to cover here. The comments section is also probably not the best medium for debate, so I'm not sure I can really say anything that will cast this in a different light. But I'll try for the sake of trying.

ActivInsight isn't about arguing with yourself. It's a way to test your painful beliefs and see something you've been missing. You do lose, in a way, because you realize that your perspective was mistaken, but you win too as you come to see the situation more clearly. Any insight works this way, as both a loss and a win.

I cite Wegner's research in my book because it demonstrates that trying not to think about something has the opposite effect. This process, however, is not about fighting your thoughts. It's about challenging them, testing them for truth value as a scientist or lawyer might. If I think that nobody loves me, for example, I'm going to feel miserable. If I test that and find it untrue by coming up with even one person who does love me, that thought becomes less tenable and loses its grip. There's no restraint or denial in it, just greater honesty.

As for 7 steps being too complicated, I think that this may be personal preference. Most processes seem to be far more laborious, and as routes to insight go, people seem to find this enjoyable and easy to use, finished in a matter of minutes. But different strokes for different folks. If someone wants to carry their anger with them, as you say, I wouldn't try to take it away. This is for people who are tired of being angry or upset or afraid, and are willing to make the effort to create a shift.

But again, I think that it's hard to say what I really want to say on this blog because it's like painting a mural on a postage stamp. Maybe some people will read The Myth of Stress and go a little deeper.

Andrew Bernstein,
First of all I wonder what you think of these implications:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100411143348.htm
The ideas that stress and such are biologically controlled as opposed to cognitively?

Secondly, the process seems simple enough in theory, somewhat tougher in practice. How could one put the death of a loved one (a mother) into this thought process if the thought behind it is "My mother should not have died." Do I negate and tell myself, "In reality, my mother should have died at this time"?

Yes, this is my personal struggle. I'm 16 years old and my mother passed away. She was in a car accident. It just seems that since this happened my life has been more stressful, so I have been trying to find ways to eliminate that stress. I really just came to the conclusion that I'm too young to be this stressed.

Thanks for the article link. I'm not a molecular pharmacologist and can't say much about this particular line of research, but generally speaking, I think that if someone is helped by medication for anxiety or depression, I'm for it. If something helps, it helps.

That said, I also think that many people can learn to work with their thoughts directly and may not need medication. I know people who have done worksheets (with their doctor's support) and who got off their meds, even very heavy meds. I'm not telling anyone what to do, just sharing my experience.

ActivInsight is a skill, and like any skill it gets easier with practice. The topic you want to work on, "My mother should not have died," well, honestly, that's not something I would do on Day 1. In The Myth of Stress, after explaining in much greater detail how and why this works, I walk you through 12 topics -- starting with traffic, working our way through anger, money, success, conflict, and others, and eventually getting to "They shouldn't have died." My own dad died when I was 14, my sister when I was 16 (also in a car accident), a few others as well shortly after, so this is an area I'm a little familiar with.

Just to clarify one point, though, your negation is correct, but it's not something you tell yourself. It's something you look for. It's like a hypothesis to be tested, and you go back over the world as you know it to see how it might be true. That's an important distinction. Negating something and then telling yourself the negation would be pretty brutal, I think. But negating it and then looking for it, considering it, exploring it, that's a different dynamic. If you start with less challenging topics, this seeking process gets strengthened, and when you get to a topic like this, you may find yourself ready.

You sound like a very smart and self-aware 16-year-old. I appreciate that you took the time to ask a question. I'd love you to get a copy of The Myth of Stress if you can, and we can talk further.

Mike,
If your reading this. I see why you are a bit defensive on your point of view. Angerflex seems to be largely dependent on the idea that anger must exist. You have a personal stake in the existence of anger. Stress must be the cause of most people's anger. So eliminate stress and eliminate anger then the need for AngerFlex is eliminated.
But what if you used the ideas from these post and the book to get at the root of the "anger" problem with your clients? It seems to me if you help someone deal with anger or accept it will always being there you are only working with the effects and not the cause.

Honestly it was hard to get a good grasp on exactly what your concept is for AngerFlex, I was trying to find a mission statement or a sentence or even a short paragraph to paraphrase it. Do you happen to have anything like that?

As a scientist I find it easy and automatic to develop hypotheses and models about why things are the way they are, even if I dislike them. A little bit of empathy and reasoning go a long way. The vast majority of my stress is caused by the blurry line between self-acceptance and free will (self-determinism), i.e., knowing if I am working hard enough and doing enough good, or if I should be more aggressive in promoting change or more strategic in my career goals. It's easy to see others as the products of circumstances and exogenous pressures and so much harder to know when similar realizations about oneself comprise an excuse or a springboard for change. I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this topic.

As a scientist I find it easy and automatic to develop hypotheses and models about why things are the way they are, even if I dislike them. A little bit of empathy and reasoning go a long way. The vast majority of my stress is caused by the blurry line between self-acceptance and free will (self-determinism), i.e., knowing if I am working hard enough and doing enough good, or if I should be more aggressive in promoting change or more strategic in my career goals. It's easy to see others as the products of circumstances and exogenous pressures and so much harder to know when similar realizations about oneself comprise an excuse or a springboard for change. I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this topic.

Developing the objectivity of a scientist (especially if you are a scientist) isn't hard for many people when they're looking at others, as you mentioned. Developing the same objectivity and looking at oneself *with compassion* is usually trickier. But in time, with practice, it's entirely possible to be aware of one's own circumstances and exogenous factors (and even endogenous factors) and to see these not as excuses but simply realities. But a kind of remapping has to occur.

For example, if I think I should weigh less and I do ActivInsight, I am asked to come up with proof for why IN REALITY I should NOT weigh less AT THIS TIME. That proof (food choices, metabolic factors, exercise patterns, etc.) can seem like justification for why I am fat. But it's not. It's simply cause and effect.

If I were to look for proof for why there should be so much rain in the Amazon Basin, I could come up with proof there too — high equatorial temperatures, higher rate of evaporation, etc. — but it's easier to see there that this isn't justifying anything. It's also cause and effect.

Mapping our objectivity when looking at the physical world onto the behavioral world takes practice. I'd say start with others. Do worksheets on people who you think should be acting differently. Then, when you're clearly seeing the factors in their lives that make this untrue, try to look at yourself from high above, as if somebody else is doing a worksheet on you *with compassionate curiosity.* That last part is important because insight isn't about blaming anyone, ourselves included. It's just about learning to see.

I think that starting with the physical world, moving to other people, then moving gently to oneself is a great sequence for developing clearer vision without excuses or justification. When you start focusing on yourself, keep an eye out for what you think your behaviors mean, and try to maintain your objectivity. Post again here if you'd like specific help with this. But I think you can do it. Being trained as a scientist gives you a great advantage with ActivInsight. I'd love to hear how it goes.

“But different strokes for different folks. If someone wants to carry their anger with…..”
I assume this applies also to issues, that is “ different strokes for different issues”.
Certain life experiences , predicaments and traumas (death included) mean a lot different things to different people. Even though “ challenging negative thoughts” could be part of the healing process, it cannot minimize or ignore (negate) other significant therapeutic factors which for most people are very powerful therapeutic experiences …for example empathy, his own coping mechanisms, belief system, social support ,religion, exploration of emotional and behavioral reactions which he may not be aware of…etc

Yes, if someone gets value from a process and it doesn't harm anyone, I completely support it. And if he or she finds at some point that there is still a sense of emotional struggle, I would encourage that person to learn to work at the level of underlying beliefs.